Republicans: Forget the White House, IF.......

who? names?

 

Gradual raises by a year on every other year would be sufficient. After 16 years of raises, the minimum could be set at 70.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting rid of the SS base wage cap would be a rise in the payroll tax for the rich.

That being said, I do believe we should restrict deductions more.

 

70 is far too old for most Americans to be working full time in any capacity.

 

Ummm..OP.... ..ranting on a message borad won't solve a damn thing. try contacting your Congressman with this.

 

Raising the public retirement age doesn't mean you have to keep working.

It just means people have to plan better with private retirement funds.

I understand why SS was created, but in the long run, socialized retirement is a financially problematic concept -- especially as people live longer.

 

retirement funds are a joke, do you honestly believe that with all the expenses of day to day life that most people have the willingness and ability to not dip into their "retirement fund"?

 

There were millions of people who THOUGHT they were providing for their own retirement until the latest downturn. Turns out they are damn glad they have SS and can still work. Their money just got shuffled back into the deck and dealt elsewhere.

 

Most of the expenses older people face are tied to healthcare. If we had an NHS, that would cover most of the issue.

Until then, we're attempting to heal a gunshot wound with a bandaid by propping up an insolvent public retirement fund while medical costs continue to skyrocket.

 

having a poor overall healthcare system may be worse than what we have now, do you honestly believe that the government can administer the entire healthcare system?

 

Our government? Maybe.

Admittedly, a lot of our peers have governments that do a better job of administering things in general.

So, I understand the skepticism many have towards our government handling healthcare properly. It's doubtful they could handle it as well as countries like France and Norway have.

That's part of why I don't plan on staying here long enough to see what becomes of America when I get old. America seems best for one thing -- making money and then leaving for somewhere better.

 

Get rid of the cap. Tax 100% of income for Social Security.

 

Agreed. I mentioned that a few posts back.

 

No. Reagan was. None since have been. And you are not.

I have great admiration for Eisenhower. I cannot say he was conservative. Most of what I have read of him involved his military leadership and experiences. Of his presidential days it is far less clear.

 

Mitch McConnell - R-KY

John Boehner -R-OH

Paul Ryan - R-WI

Mitt Romney - R-MI

Rand Paul - R-KY

Tom Coburn - R-OK

John McCain - R- AZ

http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/news/recent-news/boehner-demands-social-security-cuts

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3308

http://aattp.org/mitch-mcconnell-cuts-social-security/

http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/mitt-romney-tells-cpac-hell-cut-s

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...al-security-medicare-defense-article-1.452442

http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/...tor-says-we-don-t-really-need-social-security

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/ryan

 

Not failed at all. I'm not at all influenced by Karl Marx. I haven't read his writings, and pay no attention to him. On the other hand, you HAVE read his writings (so you say), and you can't stop talking about him. YOU are influenced by him.

I'm not coming around to anything. YOU are who called the American people's desire to raise taxes on the rich "Marxist",, So that's YOUR definition. I simply said I agree with the people 's wish. ANd you don't. You are the one who is very UNAMERICAN here by disagreeing with the wishes of 85% of the American people. And your little "Marxist" weapon is meaningless.

Unwarranted, unjustified, incorrect, personal attack, reported to the forum.

Like circus clowns do to cover up for their sadness.

 

Reagan was nothing but a greedy manipulator of people and politics. All that he did was just to enrich himself, and his movie star buddies. He set up a false school of economics, called it conservative (the farthest thing from it), and you fall for the ruse like a ton of bricks. I am a REAL Conservative,and you don't even know what that is. (even after my having explained it to you 3 times)

You are in total confusion. You can't say Ike was a conservative, because you don't even have a basic understanding of what the word means. Or you do know, and you're in denial. When you say the word "Conservative, you are really saying "Reaganist", because that's what you define the word Conservative as.

No, Eisenhower absolutely was NOT a Reaganist, he had high taxes, he chased illegal aliens back to Mexico in Operation Wetback (opposite of Reagan's amnesty), and he made national security his primary issue. He also was a big spender (along with big taxer) and built the US interstate highway system. Something Reagan would never have done. And I'm very clear on Eisenhower's presidency. I was in school during the whole 8 years of it, and we studied it every day in our current events classes.

 

No, you're referring to Billionaires who do things like this Zuckerberg did here, borrowing against his own assets. While Zuckerbeg certainly does work, others just spend their lives continuing to borrow against the asset they've already accumulated.

But we measure the Net, so we know where the majority of influx is going.

Not all liberal States are like Michigan, who lost 25% of their population over the last 30 years, but they aren't doing much better.

The Chief Actuary of Medicare said worse, don't believe him? Kind of important a guy in his position know these things, so it's troubling either way.

 

You are being intimidated by your government.

 

link 1: increase in age (McConnel)
link 2: "cuts" by fixing SSI benefit increase to price increases, and increasing the retirement age
link 3: an anti-McConnel ad calling his proposal to increase age a 'cut'
link 4: Mitt Romney's proposal to raise retirement age for SSI and "slow growth rate of benefits for higher income retirees" 15+ years down the line (not for you, or anyone near retirement age today)
link 5: says Rand paul pushes for SSI cuts, with the only quote to support the suggestion being that SSI and medicare should be, "on the table" for budget balancing. That's not a proposal to cut benefits.
link 6: Suggests that Coburn wants to eliminate SSI, with no quote whatsoever to support it but the absent connection from where he said SSI is on the path to becoming insolvent.
link 7: an obviously biased site, citing a biased source, saying that Ryan's plan would cut benefits by x amount without showing any specifics. From all that I've seen, that's not the case.

You getting lazy here?

The problem with SSI is that it was never intended as a long-term retirement plan for all people. When it was created you had to be 65 to receive benefits, 3 years older than the life expectancy. The life expectancy has increased roughly 20 years.

The real travesty of justice in SSI is that it's a program sold as helping the poor, but which in actuality helps the middle class. Think about it. Someone who goes to college for 7 years will usually start working nearly 10 years later than the blue collar worker. The college educated will pay into SSI for about 35-40 years, while the blue collar worker will pay in for about 45-50 years. Those with at least a college degree can expect to live an additional 10 years (this is obviously based off of statistics), and so in addition to contributing to SSI for 10 years less, will collect 10 more years of benefits (and the gap is ever-increasing).

The way that SSI works today is that you and your employer pay in, and the government (in theory) invests that money in extremely low-interest treasury bonds. A far better reform would be to place it in individual retirement accounts, where 55% are required to be placed in municipal or treasury bonds, while 45% are allowed to be invested as the individual chooses. This would solve any need for raising the retirement age or fixing benefits to price increases.

 

1. I'm not really interested in discussing the possibilites of how to do social security, except that i would say the $110,000.year cap on it should be abolished, and rich people should not receive it.

2. As far as I'm concerned the age increase proposals ARE cuts in Social Security.

3. Re: Rand Paul saying Social Security cuts should be on the table, I say they should be OFF the table, and Rand Paul should be off the table right along with them.

4. I'll look up Coburn and Ryan a little later when I have more time. I don't doubt I'll find a multitude of web sites talking about them cutting Social Security.

5. I don't care what Social Security was in the 1930s or whenever. I, and almost everyone in America now see it as the link to survival for us oldies but goodies, for the rest of our lives, and Republicans better come to terms with that if they want to still be a political party in the future. If they don't, they're TOAST.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/278541-lift-cap-social-security.html

 

There's a reason Social Security is referred to as the third rail of American politics. For those of you not familiar with subways or any old-timey trains that relied on electricity, the third rail is the electrified rail. If you touch it, you WILL die. No open-casket funeral, either. You're a briquette.

Social Security, when it was introduced, was derided with many of the same terms that Obamacare is today. 80 years later, it's one of the most (of not THE most) popular and successful government programs in existence. Old folks love it, and they vote. When Bush wanted to privatize it, there's a damn good reason that idea died quicker than disco, and that's a good thing considering that money would have turned into vaporcash along with the rest of it had the banksters gotten their grubby little paws on it in the years preceding the Trillion Dollar Hole in the economy those morons created and we had no choice but to bail them out of.

 

1. Okay, so you've got your head in a hole.
2. Well by your logic we've been constantly increasing SSI since it's creation, because the life expectancy has grown while the SSI retirement age has been static.
3. So again, you've got your head in a hole. You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la la," because you still don't get that not one of the proposals would affect any of your SSI benefits.
4. And I'm sure you can find a multitude of websites talking about Obama's fake birth certificate. Find the actual quote or text, or don't bother.
5. And as long as you've got your head in a hole and don't make any attempt to understand proposals to change SSI, you're making a deliberate exercise in political ignorance, and so really not worth our time.

There is certainly a good reason, and it's voter ignorance and special interests selling misinformation. polling showed consistent voter support for individual retirement accounts, but that's not what most voters thought Bush's proposal was. So many were fed the idea that SSI would be handed over to and run by a private company.

 

Have you read anything by Newton? How about Descarte? Jefferson? Madison? Mason? Washington? Keynes?

Those you have relied upon to fuel your greed, envy, desire for getting even with them, class warfare, wealth redistribution through government property thefts, they were all influenced by Radical Karl and his fellow travelers. Therefore, ignorant or not, you are influenced heavily by the one you never read.

I thought it was important to know my enemy.

I see. You have affirmed you desire to plunder your neighbor. You believe that most Americans are a dishonest lot who also want to plunder their neighbors. Your very words condemn you.

So that was the insult? LOL. Why would anyone consider the truth to be an insult and a personal attack? You yourself have admitted as much in earlier messages. Perhaaps I should have simply quoted your earier messages where you said you did not get what you deserved so you threw in the towel. I wondered what got deleted. And why. Now I know.

This still makes me smile.

 

Your beliefs no longer surprise me. Up is down. Bad is good. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Marxism is conservatism. Conservatism is greed.

What policies did Eisenhower follow that demonstrates his conservatism? I do not claim it because I have not seen any evidence of it. He was a Republican. I do see evidence of that.

You still don't understand that whole effective tax rate thing do you? What percentage did the makers actually pay then compared to now?

So let's see, he was a big spender. Conservative? Maybe, but not necessarily.

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia:

Eisenhower deposed the leader of Iran in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and used nuclear threats to conclude the Korean War with China. His New Look policy of nuclear deterrence gave priority to inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing the funding for conventional military forces; the goal was to keep pressure on the Soviet Union and reduce federal deficits. ​

He cut spending on conventional forces. Conservative? Maybe, but not necessarily.
He lost the Korean war. Conservative? Maybe, Maybe not.

 

Pretty wild when Eisenhower is deemed too liberal for today's conservative movement. And you guys wonder why you can't get any traction.